JUDGMENT Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—By filing instant criminal revision petition the complainant petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 14.3.2008 passed by Addl. District & Sessions Judge No. 1 Kishangarhbas, alwar (for short 'the appellate court') whereby the partly allowed the criminal appeals filed by the accused respondents and quashed and set aside the judgment dated 1.2.2008 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate, Kishangarhbass (for short 'the trial court') and released them on probation. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant petitioner Balwant Kumar submitted a written report at P.S. Khairthal on 20.1.1999 with regard to an incident alleged to have taken place on 19.2.1999 to this effect that Ami Chand, Nemi Chand, Surendra, Bhapu @ Bhoop Singh, Billu, Ramdhan, Gole @ Mukesh, Sarjeet came at his house, broken the gate of the house and entered in the house and destroyed the chakki, oven and sand pitcher. 3. His uncle Bhaktawar who was sleeping out side beaten by them. Further he has stated that in the morning he has sitting in his room then Ami Chand came in his house and Kartar, Surendra, Goak, Bhoop Singh, Ratia entered in the room and dragged away her unmarried sister Birma and they have given beating by lathis and insulted his sister. 4. On the basis of this written report, the police registered an FIR No. 68/1999 for the offence under Sections 147, 323, 341, 354, 379, 427 and 452 IPC and started investigation. 5. The Police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused respondents for the offence u/Sec. 147, 323, 354, 427 and 452 IPC. 6. The trial Court after hearing framed the charges against the accused respondents for the offence under Sections 147, 323, 354, 427 and 452 IPC, who denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried in the matter. 7. The prosecution in support of its case produced as many as 9 witnesses and certain documents were got exhibited. 8. Thereafter, the statements of the accused respondents under Sections 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. In defence the accused respondents produced three documents. 9. The trial court after hearing both the parties convicted all the accused respondents for the offence under Section 147 IPC to undergo one year simple imprisonment and under Section 452 IPC to undergo six months imprisonment and Rs. Thereafter, the statements of the accused respondents under Sections 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. In defence the accused respondents produced three documents. 9. The trial court after hearing both the parties convicted all the accused respondents for the offence under Section 147 IPC to undergo one year simple imprisonment and under Section 452 IPC to undergo six months imprisonment and Rs. 2,000/- fine and in default, to undergo two months simple imprisonment, under Section 427 IPC six months simple imprisonment and under Sections 354, 354/149 IPC to undergo one year simple imprisonment, under Section 323, 323/149 IPC to undergo six months simple imprisonment. 10. The accused respondents being aggrieved with the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 1.2.2008 passed by the trial court preferred an appeal in the appellate court. 11. The appellate after hearing partly allowed the appeal filed by the accused respondents and set aside the sentence passed by the trial court but upheld the conviction order and released all the accused respondents on probation for two years and further directed that under Section 12 of the probation of offenders Act there shall be no adverse affect on the service of the accused respondents Sube Singh and Sarjeet and also directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- each to the injured Birma Devi and Natthi vide judgment dated 14.2.2008. 12. The complainant petitioner feeling aggrieved with the impugned judgment dated 14.2.2008 has preferred instant revision. 13. I have heard both the counsel appearing for the respective parties and carefully gone through the entire material made available to me. 14. Mr. R.S. Sharma, Counsel for the complainant petitioner submits that the appellate court has committed serious illegality in giving the accused respondents the benefit of probation because here in the instant case the act of the accused respondents is very bad which indirectly gives wrong impression in the society. 15. Here in the instant case the accused respondents had outraged the modesty of an unmarried girl. The appellate court has totally failed to appreciate the statement of PW 9 Smt. Birma. 15. Here in the instant case the accused respondents had outraged the modesty of an unmarried girl. The appellate court has totally failed to appreciate the statement of PW 9 Smt. Birma. She in her statement has specifically stated that the accused respondents used to pelt stones on their house and they had informed the police and police reached there and when police personnel were returned, the accused persons were entered in their house and gave beating to her uncle Bhaktawar and destroyed the house-hold articles and taken away the bags of wheat crops. She further stated in her statement that they came again and said that make her the wife and to take her away. Gokal has caught her pony tail and Surendra, Nemi, Rati and Kartar caught her shoulder by putting lathi they brought her outside when her mother came to escape they also gave beating to her mother by lathis. She further stated that when her uncle came to escape to me, Sube Singh has put a leg blow on her breasts and Sube Singh broken the nada of her salwar and Sube Singh has stripped her in a room by removing all cloths. All the accused participated to get nude her. 16. She further stated that when her uncle came to escape to me, Sube Singh has put a leg blow on her breasts and Sube Singh broken the nada of her salwar and Sube Singh has stripped her in a room by removing all cloths. All the accused participated to get nude her. 16. Statement of PW 9 Birma is reproduced here-in-below: ^^lkr lky igys dh ckr gSA le; lka; 6 cts dk FkkA gekjsa edku ij eqyfteku iRFkj Qsadrs FksA iqfyl dks lwpuk nh rks iqfyl vkbZ FkhA iqfyl ds tkrs gh eqyfteku vehpan] jRrks] djrkj] useh] xksdqy] iIiw] lqjsUnz] lqcsflag] ns'kca/kq] jke/ku] eksY;k gekjs ?kj ds vanj ?kql x,A muds ikl ykBh FkhA pkSrjs ds ikl esjs pkpk c[rkoj lks jgs FksA mlds lkFk eqyfteku us ekjihV dhA esjh ekW vkokt lqudj ckgj vkbZA esjs HkkbZ jkts'k dejs esa lks jgs FksA ekW us rkyk yxk fn;k ugha rks eqyfteku mls ekj nsrsA eqyfteku us pkS[kV o njoktk ckgj Qsad fn;k m[kkM+dj gekjh eVdh ikuh dh QksM+ nhA pwYgk pkdh QksM+ nh o crZu Hkh QksM+ fn,] [kkV Hkh rksM+ nhA eqyfteku esjh ekW ds dejs esa ?kql x,A fdokM+ can dj fy,A gekjsa pkSd esa nks cksjh nks dV~Vs xsgwW ds mBk ys x,A vxys fnu 20 rkjh[k dks lqcg 7 cts 12 eqyfteku Hkhrj dejs esa vk x,A eSa o esjh ekW [kkV ij cSBs FksA lqcsflag ekLVj vehpan vkxs Fks] ckdh ihNs FksA esjs fy, dgk fd bls cgq cuk yks] mBk ys pyksA xksdy us esjh pksVh idM+hA lqjsUnz o useh us esjk [kOok idM+ fy;kA jRrks o djrkj us Hkh [kOok idM+ fy;kA lHkh esjs ykBh nsdj ckgj ys vk,A esjh ekW NqM+kus vkbZ rks lHkh ekjihV djus yx x,A useh] jRrks o djrkj us esjh ekW ds ydM+h dh ekjhA esjh ekW fxj xbZA pkpk c[rkoj NqM+kus vk, rks muds lkFk Hkh ekjihV dhA lqcsflag us esjs Bksdj ekjh Lruksa ijA ,d esjs xqIrkax esa pksV twrh ls ekjhA lqcsflag us esjk ukM+k rksM+ fn;k nYyk ds ?kj ds ikl lqcsflag us dejs esa ys tkdj eq>s uaxh dj nhA lHkh eqyfteku us uaxh dj nhA esjs pkpk us lqcsflag o vehpan ds ikaoksa esa ixM+h j[kh rc eqyfteku us NksM+k dgk fd fjiksVZ dh rks ;gh gky fQj djsaxsA** 17. Mr. Sharma, further submits that marriage of PW 9 Birma was solemnized by her parents. Mr. Sharma, further submits that marriage of PW 9 Birma was solemnized by her parents. Just after completion of 7 days of marriage, the husband of PW 9 Birma and other family member left her to parental home after saying that they (Parents of PW 9 Birma) have not stated about the alleged incident at the time of solemnization of marriage. Ultimately the marriage of PW 9 Birma was broken. 18. The appellate court has neither tried to apply his mind nor tried to go through the evidence available on record that in what type of cases the benefit of probation ought to have been given to accused respondents. The appellate court has passed the aforesaid judgment in a very superficial manner. The aforesaid act of the accused respondents is very shameful. 19. Mr. Sharma, candidly submits before this Court that because of this incident matrimonial life of PW 9 Birma has come to an end, thus her whole life has been ruined. This heinous act cannot be washed out from the mind of PW 9 Birma in her whole life. This, the impugned judgment dated 14.3.2008 passed by the appellate court be quashed and set-aside and the accused respondents be punished to such heinous offence which has been committed by them. 20. Mr. R.S. Shekhawat, PP assisted by Mr. G.S. Rathore and Mr. S.S. Ola, counsel for the accused respondents submit that the appellate court has rightly given the accused respondents the benefit of probation as the accused respondents did no argue before the appellate court on the point of conviction and the simple prayer of the accused respondents before the appellate court was for giving them the benefit of probation. 21. In the instant case following question arises: "Whether benefit of probation can be granted to the accused persons in such type of heinous offences as is in the present case, which indirectly affects the whole society particularly the career of one girl?" 22. From a bare perusal of the facts of the case, evidence available on record particularly the statement of PW 9 Birma it is clear that the appellate court has not gone through even to the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act that in what type of cases this benefit should have been given. From a bare perusal of the facts of the case, evidence available on record particularly the statement of PW 9 Birma it is clear that the appellate court has not gone through even to the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act that in what type of cases this benefit should have been given. In my considered view the appellate court has passed the impugned judgment in a superficial manner, even after not taking into consideration the evidence of prosecution witnesses specially the statement of PW 9 Birma, as also the Probation of offenders Act. Because of such heinous act on the part of the accused respondents the husband of PW 9 Birma including other family member permanently deserted her and her whole career has been ruined. In my considered view the appellate court has given the benefit of probation u/s 42 of the probation of offenders Act to the accused petitioners in an arbitrary and unjustified manner. Accused respondents Sube Singh and Sarjeet are stated to be the government servants and it is not expected from such government servants to go to such lower level which has been done by them in the instant case with PW 9 Birma. Thus, the impugned judgment dated 14.3.2008 passed by the appellate court needs interference of this court. 23. In the result this criminal revision petition is allowed and the Judgment dated 14.3.2008 passed by Addl. District & Sessions Judge No. 1, Kishangarhbass, Alwar is quashed and set-aside and the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 1.2.2008 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division) & Judicial Magistrate, Kishangarhbass is maintained. The trial court is directed to proceed in the matter in accordance with law.